Russia could have advanced its long-term diplomatic interests without curtailing its campaign in Donbass if they succeeded, while Ukraine could have kept Russia’s guard down during this process for facilitating its unprecedentedly risky gamble in Kursk aimed at staving off seemingly inevitable defeat.
I guess the answer to why Russia would agree not to completely destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is the same as the answer to why it hasn’t completely destroyed it already. Whatever that is.
Russia seems to have pivoted to LNG…why build pipelines when all of the importers are willing to buy LNG? And China has huge hydro dams that can act as natural gas storage because you simply build cheap natural gas power plants and fill up the hydro basins when natural gas is cheap.
This presumes that NATO actually cares whether Ukraine wins or loses.
NATO's goal is to attrit Russian forces. Ukraine is a convenient but disposable proxy. As long as they can be kept in the fight to kill Russian soldiers and blow up Russian tanks, NATO wants them in the fight.
The governing strategy for NATO has been simple and straightforward: NATO supplies the cannons, Ukraine supplies the cannon fodder.
At this point, going on what Russian authorities have commented about the non-trustworthiness of Western governments, and its recent experience with previous "agreements" with the West, it strains credulity to believe that Russia would rely on any "Gentlemen's Agreement" enough to leave a normally protected national border border largely unguarded. It seems more likely that this is just what it appears to be on its surface--failure to take the likelihood of such an action by Ukraine seriously enough to properly fortify its border garrison.
Western governments were (and are) willing to continue pushing the envelope by ramping up provocations and acting in ways that make their involvement undeniable. But one peculiarity is the constant seeking of something that will allow provide them with a "selectively legalistic" justification for what they do. The current Western "ruling class" delights in violating every boundary, only to pounce on their opponents for "breaking the rules" the very first time those opponents respond in kind. This can be seen not only in their attitude toward Russia, but in their domestic politics, where they accuse the other side of what they themselves are constantly guilty of.
There is one possibility that Russian leadership circle believed that (1) Ukraine's master has real INTENTION to maintain "Gentlemen's agreement", (2) Ukraine's military does not have the CAPABILITY to prepare and manage such an attack as has happened, (3) the level of NATO intervention has not and will not escalate further. In other words, the maskirovka by the west through media and even mouth pieces inside Ukraine had worked. I guess by now we can see that (a) the west have no intention to abide by any agreement (b) Ukraine still has some offensive capabilities if they are willing to sacrifice some parts of the front. (c) NATO escalation is still on-going, and probably will continue until they run out of conventional arms (d) still no reason to rule out the west using nuclear weapons precisely because western media repeated claim "Russia will use nuclear weapon".
I guess the answer to why Russia would agree not to completely destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is the same as the answer to why it hasn’t completely destroyed it already. Whatever that is.
Russia seems to have pivoted to LNG…why build pipelines when all of the importers are willing to buy LNG? And China has huge hydro dams that can act as natural gas storage because you simply build cheap natural gas power plants and fill up the hydro basins when natural gas is cheap.
How can you write this trash
Hundreds of words of fantasy, right from CIPSO
Ever hear of the Russian Foreign Ministry?
Apparently, they weren't in the loop for all these secret negotiations
The Russian people are FED UP with the likes of you
Pack your bags and bug out back to the Great Satan before you get arrested. Andy
This presumes that NATO actually cares whether Ukraine wins or loses.
NATO's goal is to attrit Russian forces. Ukraine is a convenient but disposable proxy. As long as they can be kept in the fight to kill Russian soldiers and blow up Russian tanks, NATO wants them in the fight.
The governing strategy for NATO has been simple and straightforward: NATO supplies the cannons, Ukraine supplies the cannon fodder.
At this point, going on what Russian authorities have commented about the non-trustworthiness of Western governments, and its recent experience with previous "agreements" with the West, it strains credulity to believe that Russia would rely on any "Gentlemen's Agreement" enough to leave a normally protected national border border largely unguarded. It seems more likely that this is just what it appears to be on its surface--failure to take the likelihood of such an action by Ukraine seriously enough to properly fortify its border garrison.
Western governments were (and are) willing to continue pushing the envelope by ramping up provocations and acting in ways that make their involvement undeniable. But one peculiarity is the constant seeking of something that will allow provide them with a "selectively legalistic" justification for what they do. The current Western "ruling class" delights in violating every boundary, only to pounce on their opponents for "breaking the rules" the very first time those opponents respond in kind. This can be seen not only in their attitude toward Russia, but in their domestic politics, where they accuse the other side of what they themselves are constantly guilty of.
What would you say about this ZH article just now ? https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/cia-awards-qatari-intel-chief-top-medal-cooperation-us
There is one possibility that Russian leadership circle believed that (1) Ukraine's master has real INTENTION to maintain "Gentlemen's agreement", (2) Ukraine's military does not have the CAPABILITY to prepare and manage such an attack as has happened, (3) the level of NATO intervention has not and will not escalate further. In other words, the maskirovka by the west through media and even mouth pieces inside Ukraine had worked. I guess by now we can see that (a) the west have no intention to abide by any agreement (b) Ukraine still has some offensive capabilities if they are willing to sacrifice some parts of the front. (c) NATO escalation is still on-going, and probably will continue until they run out of conventional arms (d) still no reason to rule out the west using nuclear weapons precisely because western media repeated claim "Russia will use nuclear weapon".